Editorial - Tuesday March 18, 2014

Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age

NEW ZEALANDERS have never held politicians in very high regard, but the calibre of some of the current crop is genuine cause for concern. Self-serving as they might always have been seen to be, too many today are unashamedly interested only in their personal futures. Others just need to grow up.

To some degree this is an inevitable result of MMP, an electoral system that is specifically designed to prevent any one party gaining dominance, which it achieves admirably, but supposedly allows us to elect a parliament that is truly representative of society. To some that's democracy at its most pure, that we be represented by a true cross section of society, idiots included. Some might say that's a good thing, but it is certainly not a good thing that a large chunk of the House is beholden to the parties that placed them high enough on their lists to grab a seat, as opposed to an electorate, and it is increasingly obvious that some individuals simply don't have what it takes to make a contribution.

Our political system has descended into farce when one party leader, Colin Craig, threatens to sue another, Russel Norman, over comments made by Mr Norman regarding Mr Craig's attitudes to homosexuality and women's place in society - comments reportedly made in reference to published research as opposed to any personal views. Mr Norman, whose advice to Mr Craig was effectively to get used to it, leads the party that then demanded an apology when Labour MP Shane Jones described Green MP Gareth Hughes as a mollyhawk.

That insult, if that's what it was, would have escaped most people, but was apparently intended to portray Hughes as a seabird that is widely regarded as a nuisance. One might have thought that, given his invisibility, Hughes might have been flattered to be regarded as worthy of any kind of mention.

In any event, Mr Jones, who still has touching faith in his right to speak his mind, in this case on the not inconsequential issue of drilling for oil, was apparently wrong. He was unrepentant, as one hoped he would be, but did cop a rebuke from his boss, an extraordinary response given David Cunliffe's performance over recent weeks, to the point where he is now perceived in some quarters as disorganised, disingenuous and downright dishonest.

"Whatever Mr Jones said is small beer compared with the damage Mr Cunliffe has done to his own party and the perception of Parliament as an institution worthy of respect." - Peter Jackson, Editor, The Northland Age

Mr Cunliffe should have supported him by dismissing Mr Hughes' umbrage as infantile, but succumbed to the temptation to side with the party that he clearly hopes will help him form a government later this year.

Then we have the reaction to Judith Collins' dinner in China, and her failure to offer a full and frank explanation of her behaviour when first questioned by the media. Perhaps she should have been more forthcoming, but it is difficult to get excited about an issue that has more to do with parliamentary rules than the integrity of one of Parliament's brighter lights.

The reaction was more enlightening than the offence itself. Labour MPs, who have had their own issues with rules in the past, swung from outrage to sorrow at how far standards had fallen, while Winston Peters darkly warned that he could smell something, and that there would be "more to this". This from a man who has arguably done more than any other to bring Parliament into disrepute, not least over the source of financial donations to his party and more recently a meeting he had with the German clown who continues to fantasise about his importance.

Mr Peters denied that he and Kim Dotcom had met, but then admitted they had. He had not been honest when first questioned because he and his host had agreed that the meeting would be confidential. Why? Dotcom's entire image is built on public awareness that he is a major player in our national affairs. If Winston Peters wanted it kept secret, it could only be because he feared that a meeting would be regarded with suspicion, if not derision. Much better to hoe into Judith Collins over a dinner that, however it might be represented, has many fewer negative connotations.

Russel Norman wasn't especially forthcoming about his meetings with Dotcom either. His memory was so bad that he couldn't even remember who had initiated said meetings, but eventually he admitted that he didn't fancy another lunatic fringe party cannibalising his own loony constituency.

In the meantime his party keeps coming up with or supporting ridiculous policies that will cost money we don't have so will have to borrow, from extending paid parental leave to subsidising solar power for home owners without telling them any of the downsides and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on unspecified infrastructure that will encourage kids to walk or cycle to school rather than hitching a ride with Mum.

There might be some national advantage to investing in solar power, although not as much as the Greens would have us believe given the proportion of our electricity that is already generated by renewable means, but the people who really need a hand with their household budgets won't be tempted to sign up for a $15,000 loan.

For one thing they won't be able to afford it, although they could take more food out of their kids' mouths in the misguided belief that they'll be selling surplus electricity via the national grid, and making a profit.

Mr Norman needs to explain to these people how much their power bills will reduce if they take out the loan, how much the loan will cost them over 15 years, how much they are likely to receive for excess electricity, how much their solar systems will cost to maintain, how much they will have to spend if they intend to invest in the batteries that solar power needs if it is to be more than a token gesture, and what condition their solar systems are likely to be in after 15 years, when the loan has finally been repaid.

He also needs to tell those who don't invest in solar power how much their power bills will rise because some have ceased paying their share of fixed costs.

He might also like to tell us how spending $200 million over four years is going to get kids walking or cycling to school. Co-leader Metiria Turei says the money will be used to enable kids to get to school under their own steam without risking their lives in traffic. But how? What the envisaged infrastructure might look like has yet to be explained, but presumably it will generally take the form of cycle lanes and overbridges. That'll be great news for places like Peria, Matihetihe, Broadwood and Ngataki.

Ms Turei reckons the proportion of kids who are driven to and from school by their parents has soared from 33 per cent in 1989 to around 50 per cent now, and that kids who walk, cycle or scoot to school are fitter, healthier and learn better.

Presumably this has been researched. If she can't prove that our $200 million will be well spent she should turn her mind to developing the economy so these kids will have jobs to go to when they leave school. That could be a real source of pride, even for the mollyhawk.